Sacra Eloquia

If you can read this, either your browser does not support cascading style sheets, or, more likely, the National Capital FreeNet, whose Web server hosts the graphics and style sheet for this blog, is down. Sacra Eloquia is still readable, only it isn't as pretty. For the latest blog posts, just scroll down past all the menu information.

"Thus in the Sacred Eloquence we read both, 'His mercy goes before me,' and also, 'His mercy shall follow me.' It predisposes a man before he wills, to prompt his willing. It follows the act of willing, lest one's will be frustrated." - Augustine of Hippo

Like-Minded Bloggers

Linkworthy Sites

Feeds

Contact

mcclare @ ncf · ca

Metadata

March 31, 2005

Galatians VII: Sons, not slaves

(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek
text, available for download from BibleWorks at no
charge.)

The doctrine of some professing Christians of Jewish
descent, the so-called "Judaizers," was undermining the most
fundamental question of Christian doctrine: What is the true Gospel?
How are we made right with God? The Judaizers were telling the
Galatians that in order to become a Christian, it was not enough
merely to have faith; they also had to obey the Law. This teaching
alarmed the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the churches of Galatia in Asia
Minor to tell them that we are not saved on the basis of our
obedience, but by our faith. In fact, faith and Law are antitheses,
opposites. What one is, the other is not - if the Law could
justify, then Christ died for no reason. Moreover, he argues from
their own experience that they received the Holy Spirit after they
heard the Gospel from Paul, not after obeying the Law.

Anyone who seeks to obey the Law is under a curse, because no man
is able to keep the Law, and therefore all men are subject to
condemnation. But, he says, Christ became accursed for our sakes. We
are made right with God, not because of our own obedience, but because
of Christ's obedience on our behalf. The covenant blessings
promised to Abraham and his seed find their culmination in Abraham's
descendant, Jesus Christ, and because we are united with him through
faith, we too are children of promise.

Why the Law, then? If it cannot save, and it cannot create
righteousness, what is its purpose? Paul answers that the Law shows
the sinfulness of sin. In his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul
says how he had no desire to covet until he heard the commandment:
"Thou shalt not covet" (Rom. 7:8-9). He
used the everyday illustration of the paidagwgo.j (paidagogos), a trusted slave
responsibile for the upbringing of the male children of the household.
He was a harsh disciplinarian, authorized to administer corporal
punishment. His job was to teach right conduct and supervise the boys'
daily life, staying with him at all times, including leading him back
and forth from school every day. This is the picture of the Law Paul
wants the Galatians to have: a stern taskmaster that teaches right and
wrong but whose ultimate purpose is to bring us by faith to Jesus
Christ. Now that faith has come, we believers have "come of age," as
it were, and we are no longer subject to the paidagwgo.j.

Having said all that, it appears as though another analogy drawn
from everyday life occurred to Paul: the difference between sons and
slaves.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a
child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but
is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the
father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the
elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem
them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more
a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through
Christ.

A quick digression: Paul specifically has sons in mind
here. These rights and privileges applied to male children only.
This sounds archaic, if you think about it from the perspective of
contemporary sensibilities. But male privilege was a fact of life in
Paul's day; he doesn't pass judgment on it, he simply takes it for
what it is. Nonetheless, we have already seen that Paul goes to some
length to make sure his readers understand that in Christ; all people
have equal standing without distinction: "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
(Gal. 3:28).

Coming of age

In the Roman empire, extended families often lived together under
the same roof, and the head of the household was the paterfamilias, the "father of the household." The paterfamilias was the king of his domain - his
power extended even to determining the fate of newborn babies lived
and died, or the discipline that a disobedient family member would
receive, which could range from a mild punishment to slavery or even
death.

Don't make the mistake of assuming this was a cruel, callous
society. Just because the paterfamilias had this
legal entitlement doesn't mean that in practice he was any more of a
tyrant than our fathers are today. Nonetheless, I think we can see
where Paul is coming from when he says that the son "differeth nothing from a servant" (Gal. 4:1). He
was the property of the father. He was unable to tend to his own
business affairs - in fact, he was not even allowed out of the
house without the paidagwgo.j to keep an
eye on him. But Paul says that he was "lord of
all." Despite his current low status, he was still
the legal heir, and the ownership of the estate would eventually pass
to him.

But this state of affairs did not last forever; as Paul says,
there was a "time appointed by the father"
(Gal. 4:2) at which the boy came of age. Typically, this occurred
between the ages of 14 and 17. At that time, the boy became an adult,
receiving the right to manage his own affairs, to marry, and to take
part in Roman public life. He was entitled to set aside the clothing
of his childhood, a simple tunic or robe or, in upper-class families,
the toga praetextis that had a coloured hem and
imitated the robes of civil magistrates. The son exchanged these
childish outfits for the pure white toga virilis,
the symbol of Roman citizenship. He had to wear this garment to
conduct business or to participate in public functions. Think back to
what Paul said in Gal. 3:27: "For as many of you
as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Perhaps,
being a Roman citizen himself by birth, when Paul wrote about
Christian baptism being the symbol of citizenship in the Kingdom of
God, he had the toga virilis in mind.

Adopted heirs

Paul doesn't just liken being in Christ to coming of age. He adds
yet another analogy from Roman custom. The Romans held to a form of
filial piety, or ancestor worship; they believed that the spirits of
their ancestors kept watch over them and their property. Thus it was
very important for a man to have an heir; in fact, it was considered
disgraceful to die without one.

If a man had no offspring, he might try to become adopted by
another family. In that case, his goods were transferred to the heir
of his new family, and his own ancestors would supposedly be
satisfied. Better yet, though, he might adopt an heir himself.
Typically this was the son of another family of lesser status, and
there was a ceremony by which he was formally separated from his
natural family and legally bound to his adoptive father. He might also
adopt a slave as his son.

There's a good instance of this practice in that traditional
Easter movie, Ben-Hur. Judah ben-Hur is a Jewish merchant
and a close friend of the local Roman tribune, Masala. They have a
falling out when Masala misinterprets an accident as an attempt on his
life, and as a consequence he sells ben-Hur into slavery, where he
spends three years chained to the oar of a Roman galley. When the
galley is sunk, only ben-Hur and the captain, Arius, survive, the
latter because ben-Hur saved his life. In gratitude, Arius redeems
ben-Hur from his slavery, and adopts him as his own son and heir.

This is the kind of relationship that Paul is speaking about. He
writes that "God sent forth his
Son . . . to redeem them that were under the law, that
we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4-5).

The essence of the true Gospel

This is the climax of Paul's letter. It is the very heart and soul
of the Gospel. God loves sinners. We know this because God
has taken the initiative to reconcile sinners to himself. We were
slaves: slaves to sin, slaves to an external code of righteousness
that could not save us. Paul says that "we were
children . . . in bondage under the elements of the
world" (Gal. 4:3). In Greek, the word stoicei/on (stoicheion), which the KJV
translators rendered "elements," might also be translated as
"elementary rudiments": in other words, so to speak, the
ABCs. Specifically by "we" Paul means those who received the Gospel
first, his own people the Jews, and their Law. But the Gospel has
become an inclusive thing embracing Jew and Gentile both, so by
logical extension his meaning can mean any worldly code of
righteousness other than faith in Christ. God has redeemed us from
slavery to the ABCs of a righteousness by which we cannot redeem
ourselves. Jesus Christ - the eternal Son of God -
condescended to be "made of a woman, made under
the Law" (Gal. 4:4). He who was ruler and master of all,
consented to be a servant to his own creation. At the appointed time,
he lived a life of active obedience to the Law to satisfy the demands
of the Law upon us, and died on a cross to make satisfaction for our
sins. That is the price of our redemption. It is the basis upon which
we are no longer slaves to sin, but adopted children of the Father. It
is on the basis of Christ's life, death, and resurrection that we are
justified - counted righteous - accepted by God. Though by
nature we are children of wrath, by God's grace we are children of
love.

Because we are now sons, Paul says that "God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father" (Gal. 4:6). Read also what he writes in Romans 8:

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of
God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together.

We are now on intimate terms with the heavenly
Father; we are able to call him "Abba," which as everyone knows by
now, is a term of endearment used between a small child and his
father: Daddy. Papa.

Paul continues to list the privileges of adoption: "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if
a son, then an heir of God through Christ" (Gal. 4:7). In
Roman society, there was only one heir who got the estate. But in the
family of God, we are all entitled to share in the inheritance. What
is this inheritance? Nothing less than the resurrection of the body,
eternal life, and eternal life.

(By the way, take note of the Trinitarian nature of adoption. The
Father sends the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son redeems us from the
curse of the Law. And the Holy Spirit guarantees our adoption.)

The responsibilities of Kingdom citizenship

Naturally, along with the privilege of being a citizen of Rome,
there were responsibilities. And there are responsibilities that go
along with the privilege of citizenship in heaven as well. I want to
finish by highlighting three of these.

Our adoption should produce a likeness to God. "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear
children" (Eph. 5:1). What does Paul mean by this? He
continues: "And walk in love, as Christ also hath
loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to
God for a sweetsmelling savour" (5:2). Compare Jesus' words in
the Sermon on the Mount:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt
love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate
you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you,
what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

A likeness to God entails two things: to pursue
love as God loves, and to pursue the righteousness that God
commands.

Our adoption should produce a love of peace. Jesus said
in the Beatitudes, "Blessed are the peacemakers:
for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). The
children of God pursue peace. By this I don't necessarily mean
pacifism. I have friends who can argue passionately for Christian
pacifism. But I respectfully disagree with their conclusions: I
believe there are times when self-defense or justice are, at that
particular moment, greater virtues than the lack of conflict.
Nonetheless, the Bible does say that the children of God are to be
characterized by peaceful lives. The New Testament speaks of peace in
at least three ways. For example, Paul says, in Philippians, to be
anxious for nothing, and then "the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus." (Phil. 4:7). So peace is partly the
personal, inner peace that comes from contentment. There is also peace
within the church: "[A]bove all these things put
on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God
rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and
be ye thankful (Col. 3:14-15). And third, there is also with
the world around you: "Recompense to no man evil
for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be
possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men"
(Rom. 12:17-18).

Last, our adoption should produce a spirit of
prayer. Again, I turn to the Sermon on the Mount, this time in
Chapter 7:

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye
shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that
asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that
knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his
son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he
give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good
gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in
heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matt. 7:7-11)

Remember that this follows practically on the heels of Matthew 6,
in which Jesus has just taught the proper way of praying. Here in
Chapter 7, he tells us that our prayer ought to be persistent. The
great preacher Matthew Henry put it this way:

Ask, Seek, Knock; that is, in one word, "Pray; pray often; pray
with sincerity and seriousness; pray, and pray again; make conscience
of prayer, and be constant in it; make a business of prayer, and be
earnest in it. Ask, as a beggar asks alms." Those that would be rich
in grace, must betake themselves to the poor trade of begging, and
they shall find it a thriving trade.1

Jesus draws the analogy of an earthly father and his children: if
we can openly approach our own earthly fathers and ask for food, we
will receive it, won't we? Therefore, how much more should we expect
the same of our heavenly Father? Just as we can communicate freely
with our earthly fathers, so can we with our heavenly Father.

Overall, I believe that when we contemplate what it is that God
has done for us - taken us children of wrath and adopted us as
his own children - above all else I think what we should have on
our minds is gratitude. How can we not? As the last stanza of the
hymn "The Love of God," quite possibly the greatest piece of sacred
verse ever penned, says:

Could we with ink the ocean fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above,
Would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Though stretched from sky to sky.

March 24, 2005

Galatians VI: Why the Law, then?

(This blog post makes use of the BWGRKL font for some Greek
text, available for download from BibleWorks at no
charge.)

What must I do to be saved?

A few years ago, I was doing some shopping when I was approached
by a man who wanted to invite me to church. He handed me a card that
identified himself as part of the "Ottawa Church of Christ" and
invited me to attend a talk on some practical topic or other, along
the lines of "coping with life's ups and downs." I politely
declined. The International Churches of Christ, of which the Ottawa
Church of Christ is a part, preaches a false gospel, on at least two
fronts: first, by saying that to be saved you must be baptized -
and by the right church (which of course means them); second, by
saying that you must submit to the authority of a discipler, who
becomes your de facto highest moral authority,
and to whom you are accountable even for many of the tiny details of
your daily life.

False gospels that add something to faith are nothing new. Paul
wrote his letter to the Galatians to combat a first-century version of
the same error. Professing Jewish Christians, or "Judaizers," were
stirring up controversy by saying that circumcision was necessary to
be saved. The Campbellite error of the ICOC is the same old heresy in
modern packaging.

Paul defends the true Gospel of faith alone by first
showing that he received his Gospel not from men, but by a revelation
from God. He shows that he has the endorsement of the other Apostles,
and then he shows that he was willing to stand up publicly even to
them if their behaviour were at odds with his Gospel. Then he appeals
to the personal experiences of the Galatians themselves, who received
the Holy Spirit because of their faith, not their obedience to the
Law. This is nothing less than the same faith as Abraham had, who was
counted righteous by God because he believed God's promises.
Righteousness by the Law results in a curse because it is not by
faith. But Christ has redeemed us from the curse by taking it upon
himself at the cross.

The obvious question, then, is: Why the Law, then? Now, starting
with Galatians 3:15, Paul discusses what the law was for, and why it
was incapable of saving anyone.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though
it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant,
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make
the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it
is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by
promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a
mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then
against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law
given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have
been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that
the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe.

But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto
the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified
by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor
free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.

The promise is better than the Law

God's promises to Abraham are like a man's will, Paul says. When
a man prepares his will, once it is set down it cannot be changed.
Similarly, God's promises to Abraham are irrevocable. A law that came
430 years later could not supersede what came first. What Paul is
specifically talking about is is not quite clear, because
wills, then as now, could be changed by the testator before he
died. Perhaps he is thinking of a third party, other than the testator
or heir. There were also some Jewish inheritance laws that
were irrevocable. Maybe there was some other law that we no
longer know about. The point is the same, however: If a man's will
cannot be revoked once it is ratified, how much more is God's will
irrevocable? Adding the requirements of the Law to God's promise would
change its very nature, and it would be contrary to the character of
God for him to go back on his promise.

God first makes a promise to Abraham when he tells him to leave Ur
and head for the Promised Land. This takes us practically back to the
beginning of the Bible:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a
land that I will shew thee: and I will make of thee a great nation,
and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a
blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed.

So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went
with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed
out of Haran. (Gen. 12:1-4)

Right from the beginning of his story, Abraham has enough faith to
believe God and obey him. But then God promised Abraham a son, taking
him outside to count the stars, and saying, "So
shall thy seed be" (Gen. 15:5). It is here that it is written,
"And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to
him for righteousness" (15:6). Abraham was declared righteous
by God simply because he believed the promise.

Right after this, we read of a ritual that is strange to our
modern minds: Abraham cut a ram, a dove, and a pigeon in half and laid
the halves on the ground in two rows. Then, when it was dark, the
presence of the Lord himself passed between the halves of the
sacrifices, first as a smoking pot, then a flaming torch. This is an
ancient form of oath that was used to confirm a covenant between
parties. It is what is known as a "self-maledictory" oath - when
the parties to the covenant passed through the dismembered animals,
they were in effect saying, "May this also be done to me if I break
the covenant." In effect the God of the universe is himself saying to
Abraham: "May I be dismembered like these animals if I break my
promise to you to give you an heir." This is another reason Paul gives
why the Abrahamic covenant is superior to the Mosaic law: it is based
on a promise instead of law. God's promise to bless Abraham is
unilateral. Abraham himself does not walk between the halves. There
are no conditions. By contrast, the covenant of Moses promised
blessings, but they came with strings attached: the children of Israel
were given a Law at Mt. Sinai, consisting of over 600 different
regulations, and told to obey it. Faithfulness resulted in blessings;
unfaithfulness, in judgment. The Law was not unilateral, but mediated
by Moses between the children of Israel and God.

Fast-forward a few more years. God was good to his word, and
Abraham and Sarah had a son, Isaac. But then God issued a command to
Abraham: bring Isaac to Mt. Moriah and offer him there as a burnt
offering. At the moment of truth when Abraham was ready to do the
deed, God stopped him. He provided a lamb as a substitute sacrifice,
uttering these words:

[B]ecause thou hast done this thing, and hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son : that in blessing I will bless
thee. . . . And in thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my
voice. (Gen. 22:16-18)

Next, Paul does what looks like some extreme theological
hairsplitting: he latches on to the singular "seed" in Genesis 22:18 and says that this promise
finds its fulfillment in one single person, Jesus Christ, Abraham's
true seed. Of course Paul was aware that the natural meaning of "seed"
is a collective noun meaning Abraham's descendants. He doesn't dispute
that, and anyway there is no question that the promise to Abraham was
literally fulfilled in Abraham's descendants. But what Paul
says is that the ultimate fulfilment of the promise is spiritual,
rather than biological: not the nation of Israel, but Christ -
and, as 3:29 says, the promise extends to all, Jew and Gentile alike,
who are in Christ.

The promise to Abraham foreshadows Christ. Think it through. Out
of his love for God, Abraham was willing to give up his beloved, only
son. Out of his love for us, God the Father was willing to give up
his only Son. God provided Abraham with a ram to sacrifice as
a substitute for Isaac; he provided the Lord Jesus as a
substitutionary atonement for our sins. Christ is the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Not only that, but
Mt. Moriah, up which Abraham led Isaac to sacrifice him, is in the
same part of the world where God led Christ up another hill to die on
a cross. God's promise to Abraham was literally fulfilled in Isaac and
his descendants according to the flesh. God's promise to Abraham was
ultimately fulfilled in Christ and Abraham's descendants
according to promise.

The purpose of the Law

Paul raises the obvious question: "Wherefore
then serveth the law?" (Gal. 3:19). If the Law doesn't save
you, and if the Law doesn't replace God's covenant with Abraham, then
why did God even send down the Law to begin with?

First, it was "added because of
transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). The purpose of the Law was to
demonstrate what sin was. It doesn't accomplish this merely by giving
us a checklist of dos and don'ts. It's more personal than that. The
Law shows us how truly sinful we are.

In C. S. Lewis' novel The Pilgrim's Regress, the main
character, John, is given a card containing the rules his Landlord
expects him to live by. Lewis writes:

At first he tried very hard to keep them all, but
whe it came to bed-time he always found that he had broken far more
than he had kept; and the thought of the horrible tortures to which
the good, kind Landlord would put him became such a burden that next
day he would become quite reckless and break as many as he possibly
could; for oddly enough this eased his mind for the moment. But then
after a few days the fear would return and this time it would be worse
than before because of the dreadful number of rules he had broken
during the interval.1

John discovers that there is a war going on within him; knowing
the rules, he desires to keep them, but despairs of actually
accomplishing it. Compare what the Bible says about the Law, in
Rom. 7:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking
occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive
without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and
I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be
unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me,
and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment
holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto
me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me
by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become
exceeding sinful. (Rom. 7:7-13)

The Law shows sin for what it is, and it shows sinful people for
what they are. Paul closes Romans 7 with this lament: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?" (7:24). Fortunately, he answers his
own question: "I thank God through Jesus Christ
our Lord" (7:25).

Righteousness cannot be based on law. The Law is unable to bring
life - only death. It imprisons men in their sins. The Law is a
jailor that holds men until faith comes to set free those who believe
in Christ, in fulfilment of the earlier promise.

Paul uses another analogy to describe the purpose of the Law: he
calls it a "schoolmaster" in Galatians
3:24. Some translations use words like "tutor" or "guardian" which
doesn't really do the image justice; the NIV ambiguously says "the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ."
Really, there's no equivalent in our society or our language.
Paul has in mind a kind of Greek slave, called a paidagwgo.j (paidagogos). In an
upper-class household, he was a trusted, educated slave who was
responsible for the upbringing of his master's boys. He was a stern
disciplinarian, authorized to administer even corporal punishment. He
taught them moral conduct, and supervised their lives, keeping them
away from evil. In fact, before a boy became of age, he was not
allowed even to set foot outside the house without the paidagwgo.j. One of the main jobs of the paidagwgo.j was to lead the boys to and from
school every day.

This is the image of the Law that Paul wants us to have: It is a
harsh disciplinarian, teaching us right and wrong, but whose ultimate
purpose was to bring us to Christ by faith.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under the paidagwgo.j. We "are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26); we have
come of age and we receive all the benefits and responsibilities of
being the legal heirs of the heavenly Father. This is something that
Paul will flesh out at the beginning of chapter 4; Lord willing, I
will come back to what that means in the next instalment in the
series.

The Law is not contrary to God's promise. Indeed, the Law
assumes the promises to Abraham. The Law does not add to the
promise, but supplements it. The Law reminds the sinner of his
sinfulness, driving him to appeal to God's mercy and grace. The Law
leads us back to the promise. In fact, the Law ought to
remind us of the promise. In Exodus 19:18, the words
describing the smoke and fire of the visible presence of God on
Mt. Sinai are the same words used to describe the smoking pot and
flaming torch that ratified God's oath to Abraham.

Who we are in Christ

This passage tells us what our identity is. One of the
ramifications of a postmodernist, poststructuralist worldview is that
we are nothing but the sum total of our relationships. Consider, for
example, the 1997 movie Fight Club, directed by David
Fincher. This movie is the story of a wage slave in a mundane
corporate job whose life is driven by the acquisition of material
goods. He is completely alienated from others. He has no identity of
his own; the credits simply list him as the "Narrator." At the
beginning of the film, he begins to manufacture an identity for
himself by faking serious illnesses and connecting with people at
various support groups. Later he joins a "Fight Club" in which
members bond by beating each other senseless. As the movie
progresses, the level of violence in the encounters escalates, even to
the point of picking fights with random strangers, as the Narrator
seeks out more authentic experiences.

Paul gives the Biblical answer to the question of our identity in
contrast to Fincher's artificially constructed one. We are the adopted
children and legal heirs of God the Father. We are the spiritual
brothers of Christ, God's firstborn, on the basis of his real,
historical death on a cross as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. We
are Abraham's descendants. We fulfill a promise made by God 4,500
years ago. We are not merely the sum of the shifting sand of
our relationships. Our identity is firmly grounded on the objective
rock of the unchanging God and the facts of history.

We are citizens of a different kingdom. As one of the pastors at
my church once put it, "we are no longer ordinary." We have given up
our private citizenship and become ambassadors of Christ. Paul says
that if we were baptized into Christ, we have "put on Christ"
(3:27) - essentially, we have put on Christ's uniform and we have
declared ourselves to be in his employment. If you profess Christ,
and you have not yet been baptized, ask yourself why you have not yet
donned Christ's uniform. Do you feel you don't know enough about it?
When When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:36-38), he had
been a Christian apparently for only a few minutes, and had only one
theology lesson. He had faith, not knowledge. Do you think
the time isn't right? Then when will be the right time? A more
convenient time? Death does not come at convenient times. You
do not know what will happen to you even in the next day. Can you
imagine yourself trying to explain to the Lord Jesus why you had been
a believer for years, and even with all this time to be baptized you
never actually found a convenient time?

Someone might also object: "But you don't need to be baptized to
be saved." That is true enough as far as it goes. If I were arguing
the Gospel with a member of the ICOC, I would insist on it, because
that is the very point upon which their false doctrine differs from
Biblical Christianity. In fact, I would argue straight from this very
letter to the Galatians. The ICOC is recycling the Judaizers'
arguments and simply replacing circumcision with baptism. But it is
an invalid logical leap from "you don't need to be baptized to be
saved" to "you don't need to be baptized at all." Baptism is
not essential to salvation. But it is essential to
obedience.

This passage tells us that God does not play favourites within his
family. Gal. 3:28 says that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Racial
differences are irrelevant; there is
neither Jew nor Greek. When Peter
first brought the Gospel to the Gentiles, he announced that "Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him"
(Acts 10:34-35). Class differences do not matter; there is neither slave nor free man. James tells his readers not to give
preferential treatment to rich men who come into the assembly, while
humiliating the poor (James 2:1-13). Sex differences do not matter; there is neither male nor female. It is interesting to me that when Paul
preached in Athens before the Areopagus, the only person mentioned by
name as having believed the Gospel is a woman named Damaris.

This does not mean that sex, class, or ethic differences do not
exist, or that they are to be disregarded altogether. The same Paul
who says there is neither male nor female also establishes different
roles for men and women in the church and the home, and he grounds
these roles in the created order at the Garden of Eden
(1 Tim. 2:11-14). I have been glad to have had friends with
money when I have not, who were willing to who were willing to loan me
a bit of money now and then so that I didn't get left out of social
activities. And I can't help but appreciate the variety that my
friends of Chinese, Filipino, or African descent bring to my life.
But God doesn't play favourites. We are all adopted into his family by
the same rules. We are one family.

March 17, 2005

Galatians V: Faith, not Law, justifies

The first recorded controversy in the early Church
was over the question of justification. There were certain professing
Christians of Jewish descent who were agitating the churches, claiming
that to be right with God, it was necessary to keep the Jewish Law as
well. Specifically, they were saying that circumcison was a
prerequisite for salvation.

This contradicted the true Gospel as preached by the apostle Paul,
who taught that one entered a right relationship with God through
faith alone, not by keeping the Law. To support his argument, Paul
cites examples from his own experience. First, he recounts how he
brought his protégé Titus to Jerusalem to show how the
Holy Spirit was moving amongst the Gentiles. Then he explains how he
confronted Peter to his face about his withdrawing table fellowship
from Gentile Christians in Antioch. To return to the Jewish pattern
of things, he told Peter, was to rebuild what Christ had destroyed and
say that his death on the cross was unnecessary.

Now, Paul has finished reasoning from his own personal experience,
and he starts to address the Galatians personally.

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that
ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been
evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of
you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now
made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if
it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit,
and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him for righteousness.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. For as many as
are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just
shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that
doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith. (Gal. 3:1-14)

Paul calls the Galatians "foolish." It's almost as though he is
dumfounded as to why they have been led astray. Has someone put a
spell on them? He can't think of a better reason why they would
depart from the true Gospel and start following the Judaizers.

This is especially true considering that "Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you" (Gal. 3:1). Paul preached "Christ and him crucified" to the Galatians -
effectively, it is as though Jesus had been placarded in front of them
on a billboard. And still they had been led away from the truth.

Therefore, Paul begins a systematic refutation of the Judaizers.
He approaches the issue from three perspectives: experience, Old
Testament history, and the Law.

Paul's argument from experience

Paul poses a series of questions to the Galatians about their own
spiritual experiences.

First, he asks: Was it by faith or by Law that you received the
Holy Spirit? Obviously this is a rhetorical question. The Galatians
would have to answer, "By faith."

So, second, Paul asks them: If the new birth started with faith,
are you so foolish that you think you need the Law to finish the job?
Does your faith only go so far?

Third, he asks: Are the things you are suffering all for nothing?
What he is referring to isn't evident. After all, we're only reading
one side of the conversation here. Perhaps he is thinking of
persecution at the hands of the non-Christian Jews living in
Galatia. Maybe the same kind of violence that Paul often experienced,
from Jew and pagan alike, when he preached the Gospel in an
unbelieving city (cf. 2 Cor. 11:21-29).

Last, he asks them: When God works in your midst, giving you the
spirit and working miracles, is it because of your faith? Or is it
because of your obedience to the Law? Maybe Paul has in mind the
conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10). The Holy Spirit
came upon them while Peter was still preaching. They hadn't even had
a chance to do anything yet.

Paul is again setting up an antithesis between Gospel and Law. As
I said last week, what the Gospel is, the Law is not. We are
justified by faith in Christ, but no one is justified by the Law. If
the Law could make us right with God, then Christ died for
nothing.

Paul's series of rhetorical questions forces the Galatians to
admit that they received God's blessings by faith alone. By
believing the Judaizers, they are making claims that run counter to
their own experience.

Paul's argument from Old Testament history

Paul isn't finished yet. Next, he argues out of the Old Testament
Scriptures: specifically, from the life of Abraham. Now that he has
refuted the Galatians themselves, he turns his attention to answering
the claims the Judaizers are troubling them with.

The rabbinic Judaism of that day viewed Abraham as a hero of the
faith. He was righteous, obedient - even to the point of being
willing to sacrifice his only son - and therefore, for his
obedience, God credited Abraham with righteousness. But Paul says that
this understanding of Abraham's faith is exactly backward. And to
prove it, he appeals to an earlier event in Abraham's life:

After these things the word of the LORD came unto
Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy
exceeding great reward.

And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one
born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came
unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come
forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him
forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if
thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed
be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for
righteousness. (Gen. 15:1-6)

What exactly has Abraham done in this story? Nothing. He
has simply heard God promise that he will provide a son and heir, who
will produce many descendants. Effectively Abraham is credited for
righteousness because he had ears, and he took God at his word.

A better commentary on Genesis 15 and Galatians 3 can be found in
Paul's letter to the Romans:

Cometh this blessedness then upon the
circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that
faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then
reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in
circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had
yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that
believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are
not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that
faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet
uncircumcised. (Rom. 4:9-12)

Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. That
covenant sign isn't even introduced until Genesis 17. Therefore, the
"children of Abraham" are not the ones
clamouring for circumcision; rather, they are the ones who, like
Abraham, believe the Gospel by faith.

The faith of Abraham was a foreshadowing of the Gospel going to
the Gentiles. His blessing extends to "all
nations" - not to the Jews only, and not to the
circumcised only. Timothy George puts it graphically: "Descent by
blood or physical procreation does not create sons of Abraham in the
sight of God any more than the alteration of one's private parts
does."1

Paul sums up his argument: "So then they which
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" (Gal. 3:9).
Having spiked one of the Judaizers' guns, then, he turns to another
weapon in their arsenal: Moses.

The curse of the Law

Everyone who fails to do the works of the Law is under a curse:
"Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of
this law to do them" (Deut. 27:26). Note that the Scripture
does not say, "do most of the Law" or "lead a pretty good
life" - but those who seek to justify themselves by Law are bound
to the entire Law, and that perfectly. As James says, if we
fail on one point of hte Law, we fail on all of them (Jas. 2:10). But
no mere human being has ever accomplished this, nor could one.
Therefore, all are cursed (cf. Rom. 2:17-24; 1:18-23). And so Paul
can dismiss the alternative of Law-keeping, as he says: "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it
is evident" (Gal. 3:11). Why? Because "[t]he just shall live by faith." This passage is
quoted three times in the New Testament: in Romans, where Paul shows
how one is made right with God; in Hebrews, where it precedes the
great "Faith Hall of Fame"; and here.

We can live by faith because Christ has redeemed us from the curse
of the Law. He accomplished this by "being made a
curse for us" (Gal. 3:13). Paul demonstrates this with another
curse from the Law: "he that is hanged is accursed
of God" (Deut. 21:23). Under the Law, when a transgressor was
put to death, his body was sometimes hung up on a tree. It wasn't so
much that he was cursed because of this; rather, the fact that he was
put on display in this fashion was a sign of God's curse upon him
because he was a transgressor.

Christ was the only man who ever kept the Law perfectly.
Nonetheless, for our sake, he hung on a tree, thus "being made a curse for us." We are free of the
curse ourselves because Christ's righteousness is imputed to our
account when we believe in him by faith.

Thus we are blessed with Abraham when we have faith. The
alternative is to be cursed for attempting to keep the Law by our own
strength. This is a frightening alternative, to be sure.

Application

Do we walk by faith? Abraham certainly did. Read Hebrews 11. He
obeyed God and set out for the land of promise, even though he did not
even know where he was going (v. 8). He believed God's promise that
he would have a son and many, many descendants, even though he and his
wife were well beyond childbearing age and "as good as dead" (vv. 11-12). He was even
willing to kill his only son, whom he knew was the fulfillment of
God's promise, believing fully that if he did, God would raise Isaac
back from the dead just so he could keep his word (vv. 17-19).

Do we even have a fraction of this faith? Granted, we aren't asked
to sacrifice our children or believe we can have them in our
eighties. But think of some of the smaller things.

Consider the current economic downturn, particularly in the
hi-tech sector. There's no guarantee that our jobs will be there for
very long. Do we trust God's promise to supply our needs, even if we
are not working?

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were the single most
significant event of my generation to date. It was to us what the
Kennedy assassination was to our parents. Even now, three and a half
years later, practically a day doesn't go by where 9/11 gets a mention
in the media. It set a new standard for human wickedness, proving
there are men so depraved that they have cast off all restraint and
have no compunction against murdering thousands for a cause. Do we
cower in fear because we think world events have spiraled out of
control? Or do we have faith that despite all present appearances,
God is still in control? "And we know that all
things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are
the called according to his purpose. " (Rom. 8:28). Can we
agree with Paul that we can know this, or do we just sort of
hope for the best?

This is what it means to have the faith of Abraham: to take God at
his word.

Footnotes

March 10, 2005

Galatians IV: Paul vs. Peter

One of the reference works that I return to
frequently while preparing these posts is Martin Luther's commentary
on Galatians. Not only is it one of the great works of Christian
literature, but it's just good reading. There's something attractive
about Luther's down-to-earth style - not only his wit and the
rhetorical force of his polemics, but the devotional qualtiy that
comes through even under all the bombast. It makes his work a
pleasure to pick up again and again. There's one point near the
beginning of the commentary where he slams the Anabaptist sect,
writing:

They do not go where the enemies of the Gospel
predominate. They go where the Christians are. Why do they not invade
the Catholic provinces and preach their doctrine to godless princes,
bishops, and doctors, as we have done by the help of God? These soft
martyrs take no chances. They go where the Gospel has a hold, so that
they may not endanger their lives.1

As a Baptist, of course I think that the doctrine of baptism is
one place where Luther and the other Reformers didn't Reform things
quite enough. Still, the story goes to show that there is nothing new
under the sun. Just as the Anabaptists in Luther's day were on the
trailing edge of evangelism, so too were the "circumcision party" of
the early Church: going from city to city, trying to persuade
Christians there that unless they were circumcised and observed the
Law of Moses, they could not be saved. We have Paul's letter to the
Galatians because of their attempt to infect the church at
Galatia.

But this wasn't the first run-in Paul had had with the
circumcision party, nor was it the last. If you skim the New Testament
you will also see that when he writes the Philippian church, he calls
them "evil workers" (Phil. 3:2), and in his
letter to Titus he calls them "vain talkers and
deceivers" (Tit. 1:10). Their modus
operandi was to go from church to church spreading their doctrine
and upsetting churches for their own gain. Paul refuted the
circumcision party in Jerusalem, and in this instalment we will
encounter his second run-in with this group. This time, the
circumcision party had managed to sway even an Apostle, endangering
the very unity of the Church itself unless Paul did something about it
quickly.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood
him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of
the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him;
insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according
to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If
thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do
the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We
who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that
a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of
Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we
seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners,
is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build
again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For
I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I
am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do
not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law,
then Christ is dead in vain.

Paul brought Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile, to Jerusalem to
prove that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst the Gentiles. Last
week, I argued that Paul's reason for bringing Titus along was to
force the issue, provoking the leadership in Jerusalem to make a
decision on the circumcision controversy. He did this in private
(Gal. 2:2). At that time, Paul didn't want to make a public spectacle
out of this doctrinal controversy.

Peter sticks his foot in his mouth again

But there are times when the issue demands nothing less than a
bold, direct, public confrontation and rebuke. Paul knew that
there was one Church and one set of rules, but
Peter's hypocrisy threatened to split the Church and set up
two different standards for Jews and Gentiles. This was not a
minor controversy. It undermined a fundamental principle of the
Christian Gospel.

Even our leaders are not immune from error, and when that error is
public, when it is severe, when it touches on such a basic truth of
the faith, or when it threatens to divide the people of God into
factions, then it might be necessary to be bold and confront that
leader publicly. In fact, Paul told Timothy it was a very serious
matter to bring an accusation against an elder - it's not even to
be considered unless there is more than one witness
(1 Tim. 5:19). But he follows that right up with this
instruction: "Them that sin rebuke before all, that
others also may fear" (5:20).

Peter was not ignorant of God's dealings with the
Gentiles. He was a witness to Christ's ministry. More than that, it
was through him that God brought the Gospel for the first time to the
Gentile nations. Peter should have known better, and Paul knew it. If
you will allow me the anachronism and a little creative license, let's
suppose that Paul pulled out his New Testament and pointed out episode
after episode from Peter's life that refuted Peter's present
conduct.

First, Paul might have turned to John 4 and said, "Peter, here's
this story about Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. You know
that Jesus talked with her and told her that he was the Messiah. In
fact, didn't you stay in her village for two days and see all the
people who believed in him because of her testimony?"

Or he could turn to Matthew 15 and say, "What about the Canaanite
woman with the demon-possessed daughter? Jesus didn't ignore her, did
he? No, he healed her, even though she was a Gentile. The time for the
Gentiles hadn't come yet, but he gave her a little preview, didn't
he?

"Here's another one in John 12. After Jesus' triumphal entry into
Jerusalem, it says here that some Greeks were there and wanted to see
him. Were you there, Peter? It is because of those Greeks that Jesus
announced that his time had come, and that when he was lifted up from
the earth he would draw all men to himself. Not just Jews, Peter,
all men, Jews and Gentiles. What happened? Did you
miss the point?

"And what about Matthew 28? 'Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations' (Matt. 28:19). You did hear that,
right?

"How about the first third of Acts? Isn't that your life story,
Peter? What did you say to the crowd on Pentecost? 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call' (Acts 2:38-39). Now, when I wrote to the Ephesians,
Peter, by those who were 'far off,' I meant
the Gentiles (Eph. 2:13). Is that who you had in mind?

"Here's your second sermon, the one you did at the Temple. You
were speaking to the Jews, but you quoted the covenant with Abraham
from Genesis 22:18: 'And in thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed' (emphasis added). I
use that verse too, Peter. In fact I tell the Gentiles that the 'seed'
is the Lord Jesus, and then I use this verse to prove to them that God
would justify them by faith just as he did Abraham.

"This one's good. Acts 10. You're up on Simon the tanner's roof
and you have this vision of a sheet full of lizards and other animals
coming down from heaven, and a voice invites you to dinner. You
object, being a good Jew, and the voice tells you not to declare
unclean what God has declared clean.

"Later you meet up with Cornelius the centurion, and you find out
that he was directed to seek you out by a vision of his own. So you
compare notes, and you finally figure out what God was
telling you: 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons,' you said, "but in
every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him . . . To him give all the prophets
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall
receive remission of sins' (Acts 10:34-35,43).

"And what happens? Cornelius and all his relatives are there, and
they receive the Holy Spirit, and it's so obvious what is going on
that you can't even come up with a good reason not to baptize
them!

"But then a few days later, you came back to Jerusalem, and some
Jewish Christians confronted you and they accused you, saying: 'Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with
them' (Acts 11:3). And you answered them like this: 'Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did
unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I
could withstand God?' (11:17) And that shut them up.

"So, Peter, what changed between then and now? You didn't refuse
to eat with the Gentiles in Jerusalem; why are you doing it in
Antioch? Have you forgotten everything that has happened to you, so
that you drag Barnabas and all the other Jewish believers into
hypocrisy with you? I know you've put your foot in your mouth before,
Peter, but this really takes the cake. Explain yourself!"

And, of course, Peter cannot. He has no excuse. He knew that God
had established a relationship with the Gentiles on the very same
basis as with the Jews: faith in the finished work of Christ on the
cross. The Gentiles in Cornelius' household had no Law of Moses to
obey, but nonetheless, they received the Holy Spirit when Peter
preached to them and they believed. In fact, it was so obvious to
Peter and the other Jewish believers present what had happened, Peter
even said he could see no reason why they should be refused baptism!
(He didn't even make them go to baptism class.)

The problem wasn't with Peter's knowledge. It wasn't his
doctrine that angered Paul. It was his conduct. His
refusal to eat with the Gentiles when the circumcision party came was
inconsistent with his professed belief. He wasn't motivated by
righteousness, but "fear of the Jews." Peter wanted to ingratiate
himself with the circumcision party, so he played the hypocrite; he
played the part so well that he drew Barnabas and the rest of the
Jewish believers into sin with him. He was compelling the Gentiles to
live like Jews, because by his actions he was implying that there was
more to Christianity than they were getting, and that if they wanted
to be real believers, they would have to start observing the
Law as well. But this was the very opposite of the Gospel Paul had
received from Christ. Peter, Barnabas, and the others were "not in step with the truth of the Gospel," as the
ESV puts it, so Paul is compelled to corner the ringleader and chew
him out in public.

Paul continues to state his case from Gal. 2:15 onward. Since
Greek doesn't use quotation marks, we can't tell where Paul's
narrative ends and he addresses the Galatians directly
again. Practically every translation assumes the rebuke goes right to
the end of the chapter. Either way, it is Paul's thought; it makes no
difference to the meaning.

In verses 15 and 16, Paul tells Peter, effectively, "We are Jews,
not Gentile sinners. Look at all the advantages we have! God chose us
out of all the nations. He gave us the Law and told us that if we
obeyed it, all the other nations would see us and know how enlightened
we were. He gave us the prophets. He even promised us that we would
produce the Messiah and bring light to the entire world. But guess
what? All those advantages make no difference. We are not made right
with God by observing the Law. God counts us righteous by our faith in
Jesus Christ."

The antithesis between Law and faith

All the way through this passage, Paul sets Law against
Gospel. When it comes to being in a right relationship with God, the
Law and the Gospel are antithetical to one another. What one
is, the other is not. We are justified by faith in Christ; on the
other hand, "by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified" (Gal. 2:16). Or, "if
righteousness come by the law," then what need is there of
Christ? He "is dead in vain"
(Gal. 2:21).

Law cannot save. This truth goes against "conventional wisdom,"
which supposes that if someone were to live an upright and moral
life - never killing anyone, selling drugs to children, robbing a
bank - that somehow God "owes" him a spot in heaven if he can
manage to be a basically decent citizen for threescore and ten
years.

But if we think we can earn God's approval like this, we are
deluding ourselves. No one has ever accomplished perfect conformity to
God's perfect standard of righteousness. And if we break even the
finest point of the law, we might as well break the whole thing as far
as God is concerned. Do you hate? Then it doesn't matter that you've
never murdered anyone. You've done it in your heart. Do you cheat on
your taxes? Then all those times you've successfully resisted the urge
to rob the bank just came to nothing. We just can't do it. The Law
cannot save.

But Christ is the single person in history who was able to keep
the entire Law perfectly. His active obedience to the
Father's decrees is transferred (or imputed) to us when we
believe. God justifies us, or declares us righteous, because
Christ was righteous on our behalf. And that's why, unlike the Law,
faith in Christ brings justification.

Then Paul raises a potential objection. What if, someone might
ask, "while we seek to be justified by Christ, we
ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of
sin?" (Gal. 2:17). Maybe some of the circumcision party
cornered Peter with this question. "Peter, you know eating with
Gentiles goes against God's law. By doing it in the name of Christian
liberty, aren't you using Christ's name to justify sin?"

"God forbid," Paul says. he
says. "Christ has destroyed the Law as a basis for justification. If I
go back to the Law now, I would be saying the Law could do something
Christ could not. I would be rebuilding what Christ has destroyed. The
Judaizers are saying that fellowshipping with the Gentiles makes you a
lawbreaker. But they've got it backwards. It's actually
separating from the Gentiles that breaks the Law, because God
has broken down the barriers between us. 'What God
hath cleansed, that call not thou common'" (Acts 10:15).

And from there Paul goes into what is probably the best-known
passage in Galatians:

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:19-20)

Martin Luther has a wonderful remark on this
passage:

Did the Law ever love me? Did the Law ever
sacrifice itself for me? Did the Law ever die for me? On the contrary,
it accuses me, it frightens me, it drives me crazy. Somebody else
saved me from the Law, from sin and death unto eternal life. That
Somebody is the Son of God, to whom be praise and glory forever.2

The Law never loved anyone and never died for
anyone. But Christ did. He was crucified for us so that we might have
forgiveness of sins. And we are crucified with
Christ. Because Christ bore our sins, we identify with him on the
cross, and in a sense we died with him. Paul writes in Romans
7 that it was the Law that enslaved him to sin, making him aware of
what sin was and arousing those sinful passions in him. The Law
legislated the life of God's people, and because no man could live up
to its standards, it condemned them. But since we have died with
Christ, we are also dead to the Law. We are not under its jurisdiction
any longer. Being dead to the Law, we are able to live freely for
God, because although we continue to live in our own flesh, Christ
lives within us through the person of the Holy Spirit who enables us
to live for God. My favourite passag of the Bible says:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit
itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be
uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of
the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
the will of God.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified. (Rom. 8:28-30)

One of the Holy Spirit's tasks is to conform us to
Christ-likeness. It is the Spirit who enables us to live for God,
because we cannot do it on our own effort: "For if
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do
mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" (Rom. 8:13).

Consider the alternative. What if we could live according
to the flesh? What if we could make peace with God by our own
effort in obeying the Law? Paul closes his argument with this: "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in
vain" (Gal. 2:21). There's that antithesis again - it's
either Law or Christ, but not both. If it were possible to obtain
righteousness in God's eyes by our good works, then why did Christ
need to die at all? Did the Father send him down for fun? Was it
merely to make him a public spectacle? Indeed, there are those who
hold to the so-called Moral Government theory of the Atonement, who
say that Christ's death did not function as a substitutionary
atonement for the sins of men, but merely demonstrated to the world
how seriously God takes sin. Christ's death does not pay for sin so
much as show men why they should live righteously. Are they right? I'm
with Paul: God forbid! If the Law can save, there is no need for
Christ. If we can add our human merit to Christ's, if we can earn
passage to heaven, if we rebuild the Law that Christ has torn down,
then we mock his death, and we're no better than those who taunted him
to save himself on Golgotha, because in effect we're saying the same
thing: "Come on down, we don't need you up there. We'll just take care
of it ourselves."

A final warning

Whenever the truth of justification by faith alone has been
preached, it has always been met with the same objection: it provides
an excuse for loose living. Paul heard it from the Jews. Martin Luther
heard it from the Roman priests. I have heard it myself from modern
legalists such as the Seventh-day Adventists. Such people
misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrine. Paul says faith alone
justifies; it makes us righit with God. No human work can
merit that.

These days, though, it also seems that in some Evangelical circles
the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. How often have
you heard the slogan, "Oh, we're not under law, we're under grace"?
Far too often, someone is saying this to summarily dismiss any sort of
standard of conduct that he finds too restrictive or
"legalistic" - another word that gets thrown around with far less
care than it should.

(For example, just this week someone accused me of "legalism"
online, because I pointed out how he had used a Scriptural proof-text
out of context. When "legalism" extends even to "rightly dividing the word of truth"
(2 Tim. 2:15) and insisting that Scripture be handled with
integrity, the term has lost all meaning.)

When Paul says we are "under grace," he means something very
different. It is sloppy reasoning to leap from the doctrine of
justification by faith alone to the idea that being "under grace"
legitimizes any sort of sinful conduct. In fact, the Word of God says
the exact opposite:

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body,
that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your
members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield
yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not
have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under
grace.

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but
under grace? God forbid. (Rom. 6:12-13)

Since we are under grace, not law, we are being conformed into
Christ-likeness by the Holy Spirit. Because we are free from
the power of sin, we are free to live righteously for
God. That is what it means to be under grace, not Law.

Paul writes to the Philippians to "work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12), but
he adds to this that "it is God which worketh in
you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (2:13). That
is what it means to have Christ living within you.

John wrote in his first letter that "we say
that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth" (1 John 1:6), but he turns right around and
says soon after, "If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness" (1:9). That is what being "crucified with
Christ" is all about.

March 03, 2005

Galatians III: The test case

In Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925, the "trial of the
century" - the so-called "Scopes Monkey Trial" - was held. A
schoolteacher named John Scopes had been charged with violation of the
Butler Act, a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in
schools. This famed court case brought a number of famous
personalities into Dayton. Clarence Darrow, the most notorious
criminal defense lawyer of the day, declared that it was civilization
itself being put on trial. William Jennings Bryan, onetime
presidential candidate and the greatest political orator of the day,
saw his prosecution of Scopes as the duty of an evangelical Christian
standing for orthodoxy against the forces of unbelief. H. L. Mencken,
the greatest journalist of the time, was an atheist who thought the
whole thing was a joke and the good people of Dayton and Tennessee
were ignorant boobs. Between the grandstanding of the two attorneys,
Mencken's mocking, and the descent of 200-odd reporters on the town,
the whole event was a media circus.

The Scopes trial was a test case. John Scopes wasn't
charged because he was caught teaching evolution. He volunteered to
stand trial at the prompting of the American Civil Liberties Union and
a local businessman who thought the law was unfair. It wasn't even
important that Scopes won; in fact, he lost. The purpose of the case
was to test the validity of the law. Eventually, the ACLU and
other critics of the Butler Act were vindicated. It was
repealed . . . in 1967.

Similarly, we see in Paul's letter to the Galatians that the
Gospel he preaches has effectively been put on trial. "Judaizers,"
Jews professing Christianity, are agitating the church in Galatia,
telling them that in order to be Christians it is first necessary to
become Jews by being circumcised according to the Law of Moses. They
seem to be attacking Paul himself as well, trying to cast doubt on his
authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Fourteen years after his conversion, Paul finally gets the chance
to "talk shop" with the Apostles in Jerusalem. He brings a friend
along with him, a man named Titus. Titus is Paul's test case to prove
the validity of his doctrine. He writes:

Then fourteen years after I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up
by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation,
lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither
Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in,
who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever
they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:)
for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto
Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of
the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) and
when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right
hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto
the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor;
the same which I also was forward to do. (Gal. 2:1-10)

When was Paul in Jerusalem?

When did this trip to Jerusalem take place? Most Bible scholars
equate the "fourteen years after" trip with the council of Jerusalem
(Acts 15). Since the accounts in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 have a
number of surface similarities, including their subject matter, this
argument is not without merit. The council of Jerusalem was convened
to deal with the relationship between Law and Gospel.

There are difficulties with this harmonization, however. Paul
says in Galatians that he went to Jerusalem because of a revelation.
God told him to go. According to Acts 15:2, however, he and Barnabas
were delegated to go by the church in Antioch. More significantly,
however, if the council of Jerusalem has already taken place by the
time Paul is writing this letter, why did he bother writing it at all?
The issue of circumcision had already been debated at length, a
conclusion reached, and an open letter issued. The resolution of the
council had the approval of all the Apostles. If the letter copied by
Luke into Acts 15:23-29 was already in circulation, then Paul's letter
to the Galatians was redundant. The letter from Jerusalem should have
settled the matter.

I hold a minority view. I personally believe that the Jerusalem
trip Paul is speaking of is the one mentioned briefly in Acts
11:27:

And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem
unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and
signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout
all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then
the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send
relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea: which also they did,
and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

This harmonization fits the facts: the "revelation" Paul responded
to could have been direct instructions from God; on the other
hand, it could have been Agabus' prophecy. And since Luke is
completely silent on what Paul and Barnabas did while in Jerusalem,
there aren't any difficulties in harmonizing this passage with
Galatians 2. Finally, Paul says that the Apostles had asked him to
remember the poor, and the very reason he was in Jerusalem in the
first place was to deliver relief money to the believers there. Of
course, there are perfectly good Christians who disagree with me.
It's a minor issue.

Paul meets the Twelve

Paul says, then, that he went up to Jerusalem and submitted his
Gospel to the apostles, "lest by any means I
should run, or had run, in vain.." My original thought when I
read this verse was that Paul was showing some normal, human
uncertainty about his teaching - a very understandable situation
given the opposition he was obviously feeling. But I realized that
this isn't consistent with Paul's argument up to this point, where he
claims Christ revealed the Gospel to him directly, and he has been
preaching it all over the place for 14 years. These are not the
actions of a man with doubts about the correctness of his doctrine!
Paul is not seeking reassurance, but unity - by seeking
the endorsement of the Apostles in Jerusalem, he derails the attempt
by the Judaizers to cause him to "run in vain" by discrediting his
ministry.

He receives the endorsement he seeks. Verse 6 says that "they who seemed to be
somewhat . . . added nothing to me." If Paul's
detractors were right, and circumcision was necessary to salvation,
then the Apostles would have told Paul to preach it. On the contrary,
the Apostles had recognized God had been working through Paul to bring
the Gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had worked through Peter to
bring it to the Jews. They gave him the "right
hands of fellowship" and sent him back out to preach to the
Gentiles with their blessing.

The Apostles do attach one "rider" to their endorsement: they
remind Paul to "remember the poor" (v. 10).
Paul is quick to point out that this was "the
same which I also was forward to do." In fact, caring for the
poor Christians in Judæa formed a major part of Paul's
ministry. If I am right in my harmonization of Galatians 2 and Acts
11, then the primary reason Paul was in Jerusalem in the first place
was to deliver relief funds. His instructions on giving in
1 Cor. 16 and 2 Cor. 9 are given in the context of taking up
a collection for the poor. Paul was finally arrested in Jerusalem
after he insisted on being the courier for this offering, against the
advice of the church members at Caesarea, including the same prophet
Agabus who foretold the famine that took Paul there with his
first offering! The welfare of the poor saints in Judea, and
the unity of the Jewish and Gentile Church that this offering
symbolized, were more important to Paul than his own freedom. Paul was
eager to remember the poor because it proved that there was
one Church, one people in Christ, all saved by
one Gospel of grace.

Titus the Gentile

In the meantime, Paul had brought a friend with him: a young
protégé named Titus. Though an important New Testament
figure, the details of his life are actually pretty obscure. Luke
doesn't even mention him in Acts. In Paul's later letters we find out
that he was sent to Corinth to take up a collection (for the saints in
Judea, naturally!). And later, when Paul is in prison for the first
time, he writes a letter to Titus, who is church-planting in
Crete. Finally, he is sent on an errand from Rome, where he is with
Paul during his final imprisonment. As for the remainder of his life
and missionary career, there is silence.

Titus, being a Gentile, was not circumcised unlike the Jewish
Christians in Jerusalem. Those Jews in Jerusalem who had converted to
Christianity still had a high regard for the Mosaic Law; they were
Christians by faith, though Jews by culture. However, some of them
were "false brethren." By all appearances,
they were a part of the Body of Christ. However, they were agitating
the Church, attempting to persuade them that, as Acts 15:1 says,
"Except ye be circumcised after the manner of
Moses, ye cannot be saved.." More than this, Paul accuses them
of having "came in privily to spy out our liberty
which is in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into
bondage."

Whenever I read this passage, I am struck with the mental image of
robed and bearded Peeping Toms, skulking around people's houses,
trying to catch a clandestine glimpse of Titus with his pants down so
they can be appropriately scandalized and go off and tell everyone how
outraged they are. There is still no shortage of busybodies and
mudslingers in the world, after all. Realistically, however, I think
Paul was saying that the false brethren were something like the
Pharisees who tried to entrap Jesus, as Luke 20:20 says: "And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should
feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his
words." The Judaizers were trying to set a trap for Paul and
Titus, to discredit them. Maybe they wanted to catch Paul saying
something outrageous: advocating antinomianism (since we are not under
Law, but grace), repudiating Jewish tradition, or bringing Gentiles
into the Temple. These are the sorts of accusations that Paul's
enemies would make later in his ministry, anyway.

But it didn't work, and Paul did not give in; he says, "neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised; and, "we gave
place by subjection, no, not for an hour." Thus the Judaizers
were unsuccessful in adding works to the Gospel. They were
unsuccessful in having Titus circumcised. And they were
unsuccessful in driving a wedge between Paul and the other
apostles that would discredit the Gospel of grace. On the contrary, as
we have already seen, Paul walked away from that meeting with the
endorsement and full support of the Twelve. Nonetheless, the
"circumcision party" was to be a thorn in Paul's side on more than one
occasion in the future. We will see another one of these encounters
in the next installment.

But what about Timothy?

There is nothing so plainly stated that someone won't try to find
fault with it. There have been those who have tried to argue that Paul
did, in fact, have Titus circumcised. Some of these have
latched on to Paul's statement that he wasn compelled, and
asserted that it meant he must have done so voluntarily.
Others have exploited the reading of a few corrupt Latin Bibles, that
read that Paul and Titus did give in to the false brethren,
suggesting that they at least made a concession for the moment. (I
have seen this line of reasoning or something similar used enough
times that I have started calling it the "it might be true, therefore
it must be true" proof.)

The motivating force behind this questionable interpretation
appears to be an attempt to "harmonize" Galatians 2 with another
passage dealing with Paul and another of his protégés,
Timothy. Look at the first few verses of Acts 16:

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a
certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain
woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and
Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and
circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for
they knew all that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)

Paul had Timothy circumcised, so why not Titus? The simple answer
is that Timothy was not Titus, and the situation was not the same.

First, Timothy was Jewish on his mother's side; that meant he was
effectively Jewish, too. Paul's argument was that Gentiles need
not be circumcised to be accepted by God; he was not arguing that
Christian Jews were to give up their Jewish identity as well. On the
other hand, Titus was not Jewish at all, but a Greek. He had no Jewish
identity.

Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews in
the area. They knew Timothy's family, and they also knew that he was
half Greek. Paul had Timothy circumcised to identify him with the
Jewish side of his heritage rather than the Gentile. In effect, Paul
was carrying out his policy of "unto the
Jews" becoming "as a Jew, that I might gain
the Jews" (1 Cor. 9:20). Timothy's circumcision had
nothing to do with the truth of the Gospel itself, but it did deflect
an excuse that the Jews might have used to reject the Gospel: since
the one preaching it was a Gentile, it was not for them.

In Titus' case, on the other hand, it was not just a matter of
respecting a tradition. Paul flatly rejected Titus' circumcision
because the very content of the Gospel was at stake. He
admits as much to the Galatians, saying, "[t]o
whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth
of the gospel might continue with you." Paul would concede a
point of tradition for the sake of the Jews, but he would not concede
a point of truth for the sake of false Christians. It defies all logic
for Paul to submit to the very concession he was opposing, then
announce to the Galatians that, nonetheless, the integrity of his
Gospel was intact!

My personal opinion is that Paul brought Titus along with him to
Jerusalem to be deliberately provocative. By this I don't mean that he
was a rabble-rouser, just trying to stir up controversy. Instead, I
mean that he did it to force the issue. He wanted to provoke the
Church authorities in Jerusalem to settle the matter. In essence, he
brought Titus along with him as a test case. Paul stood him up in
front of the Apostles and those false so-called brethren, and said,
"Behold the man!" Titus was Paul's trump card. He wasn't circumcised,
but his life and his testimony made a lie out of the false assertion
of those Judaizers that God only favoured the circumcised. God accepts
people not because of their lack of foreskin, but because they have
put their faith in the finished work of Christ as sufficient to atone
for their sins and make them right with God. There the evidence
stands, in the person of Titus. And if the Judaizers or anyone else
say differently, then they are under God's curse.

Circumcision and the contemporary Church

These days, however, the Church is mostly Gentile, and so
circumcision per se isn't what we'd call a hot issue any
more. Nonetheless, I think we can draw two general principles
from Paul's defense of the Gospel.

First, it is OK to compromise on your personal policies for
the sake of the Gospel. This is what Paul did with Timothy. As he
said in 1 Corinthians:

[U]nto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that
I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without
law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law
to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak
became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Cor. 9:20-22)

Arguably the best modern example of this philosophy is the
ministry of Hudson Taylor in China in the 19th century. At the time,
overseas missions in China were having little success, and part of the
reason for this was that when British missionaries brought the Gospel
overseas, they brought Western civilization as part of the
package. Taylor decided instead to leave Western civilization
behind. He grew his hair long and braided it into a queue, as was
mandatory for Chinese men at the time, and dressed as a
mandarin. Taylor wasn't interested in making English Christians out of
the Chinese. Hudson Taylor's approach to evangelism allowed him to
travel almost anywhere in China and be respected. He removed the
unnecessary stumblingblock of Western culture; to the Chinese
he became a Chinese, so that he might win Chinese.

On the other hand, however, it is not OK to compromise the
truth of the Gospel to make it more acceptable. This is why Paul
refused to have Titus circumcised. Maybe if he had capitulated, he
might have won more Jews that way. Who knows? The principle of liberty
says that it is OK to remove unnecessary stumblingblocks from in the
way of the Gospel. The problem is, the Gospel is itself a
stumblingblock. Paul writes that his fellow Jews were perishing

[b]ecause they sought [righteousness] not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at
that stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a
stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him
shall not be ashamed. (Rom. 9:32-33)

By all means, remove any unnecessary barriers to
hearing the Gospel, but do not compromise on the Gospel itself. If
unbelievers take offense at the truth itself, so be it.

In 1997, the Promise Keepers organization made an important
revision to its statement of faith. It originally read:

We believe that man was created in the image of
God, but because of sin, was alienated from God. That alienation can
be removed only by accepting, through faith alone, God's gift of
salvation, which was made possible by Christ's death.

The revision read:

Only through faith, trusting in Christ alone for
salvation, which was made possible by His death and resurrection, can
that alienation be removed.

A few words can make all the difference. The word alone
was moved from qualifying faith to qualifying
Christ. The change was made specifically to accommodate Roman
Catholic men who were interested in getting involved. Catholic
doctrine rejects sola fide, because the Roman church claims
Christians must continually do something to remain in a state
of justifying grace. But the Romanists have no problem at all with
"Christ alone." It affirms the exclusivity of Christ but allows for
human merit to be added to faith. I don't want to seem too down on the
Promise Keepers. I think the aims of the organization are worthwhile,
and I'm sure that their intentions were good. But they have
compromised the true Gospel to make the organization more
acceptable. This is the very opposite of the right approach.

If you've ever been involved with some sort of non-denominational
parachurch organization or campus club or activity, then you know that
inevitably the "Catholic question" comes up. To what extent may we go
to accommodate those from other traditions who want to get involved?
Paul's example is clear: the facts of the Gospel are
non-negotiable. If we are part of an organization whose doctrinal
statement is deficient when it comes to the facts of the Gospel; if we
are part of an evangelistic effort but we are constrained in the way
we may present the Gospel because of the different groups involved; if
we are restricted in how we can speak in public because the
organization wants to put forth an appearance of unity; then
unfortunately, it might be necessary to rethink our involvement. We
don't like to do that. It makes us uncomfortable to be even a
little divisive, because disagreement is nearly taboo in today's
society. But that kind of "unity" is only a façade. There is no
true unity outside the truth. Stand firm for the truth, and do not
subjugate yourselves to those who would compromise it. Then you can
say with Paul that the truth of the Gospel remains intact.